Pradeep Kumar Jha v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court CWJC No.15305 of 2012 (3) dt.12-02-2013 2 complete lack of administrative control on the part of the petitioner. It is true that the charge of financial indiscipline or any embezzlement could not be established but then had that been established, the petitioner could not have been subjected to lesser punishment of compulsory retirement from service by which automatically the government servant has to get the post retirement benefit which is not admissible to a dismissed employee in terms of Rule 46 read with Rule 46-A of the Bihar Pension Rules. Submission of Mr. Ashutosh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner that reasoned order has not been passed will also not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case inasmuch as the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Assam & another Vs. Bimal Kumar Pandit, reported in A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1612 while classifying three types of cases in the disciplinary proceeding had held that no specific reason was required to be given by the disciplinary authority in case he had agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer holding the delinquent guilty of all the charges. Here in the present case from a reading of the enquiry report it is more than clear that the petitioner was found guilty in respect of all the three charges; inasmuch as charge no. 1 against the petitioner reads as follows :- la0 1%& eaMy dkjk dfVgkj esa Jh iznhi dqekj >k ds inLFkkiu vof/k “vkjksi Patna High Court CWJC No.15305 of 2012 (3) dt.12-02-2013 3 esa buds dk;kZy; esa ftudh fy[kkoV esa foi= rS;kj gks jgs Fks] bldh tkudkjh ds izfr tkudkjh j[kus ds ckotwn vufHkKrk izdV dj muds }kjk tkWp inkf/kdkjh ls rF; fNikus dh ps’Vk dh xbZ rFkk ,slk izrhr gksrk gS fd xcu ds fy;s fuf”pr i`’V Hkwfe rS;kj djus esa bUgksaus vge Hkwfedk fuHkk;h tks xaHkhj dnkpkj dk |ksrd gSA” The finding of the Enquiry Officer, as with regard to charge no. 1, after considering the explanation of the petitioner in the light of the evidence on record was as follows :- “earO;%& vkjksih us vius mij yxk;s x;s vkjksi ls ;g dg dj bUdkj fd;k gS fd dkjk esa lgk;d dkjkiky ds Lohd`r nks inks ads fo:) dsoy ,d lgk;d dkjkiky dk;Zjr Fkk blfy, dk;Z dh vf/kdrk ds dkj.k lgk;d dkjkiky ls cgqr eqf”dy ls dke djk;k tk jgk Fkk rFkk ,slh fLFkfr esa Jh >k ds }kjk bl ckr ij vf/kd /;ku nsuk laHko ugha Fkk fd lgk;d dkjkiky ds ftEes dk lkjk ys[k dk;Z mUgha ds gLrfyfi esa Fkk ;k ughaA tSlk fd dkjk v/kh{kd us fy[kk gS fd Jh jaxukFk ik.Ms;] lgk;d dkjkiky ds ftEes cgqr vf/kd dk;Z Fkk rks bldk izHkko Jh ik.Ms; ij gh iMuk pkfg, Fkk] Jh >k ij ughaA bl izdkj budh ;g ekSu Lohd`fr gS fd ;g ckr budh tkudkjh esa Fkh fd dkjk dk ys[kk dk;Z lgk;d dkjkiky ds ftEes dk dk;Z fdlh nwljh O;fDr dh fyfi esa fy[kk tk jgk Fkk ysfdu mUgksaus mls jksdus dk dksbZ iz;kl ugha fd;kA bl laca/k esa dkjk v/kh{kd] dsUnzh; dkjk] Hkkxyiqj dk ;g dFku fd Jh >k ds }kjk flQZ ;g dg nsuk fd O;fDrxr :i ls nSfud dk;kZs ij fuxjkuh j[k ikuk dgk¡ rd laHko gS viuh tokcnsgh ls eqdjuk ,oa rF; dks fNikus ds vUrxZr vkrk gSA dkjk v/kh{kd] dsUnzh; dkjk Hkkxyiqj ds earO; ls eSa iw.kZr lger gw¡A Jh >k dh ykijokgh ds dkj.k xcu ds fy, fuf”pr i`’BHkwfe rS;kj gqbZ] blesa lansg dh dksbZ xqatkbZ”k ugha gSA” Similarly, charge no. 2 reads as follows:- “vkjksi la0 2%& dks’kkxkj lafgrk esa of.kZr fudklh ,oa O;;u inkf/kdkjh }kjk cjrh tkus okyh lko/kkfu;kW Jh >k ds }kjk ugha cjrs tkus ds dkj.k ;g xcu vklkuh ls lEiUu gks ldkA u Patna High Court CWJC No.15305 of 2012 (3) dt.12-02-2013 4 dsoy fudklh ,oa O;;u inkf/kdkjh gksus ds ukrs Jh >k us vius oS/kkfud nkf;Roksa dk ifjikyu fd;k] cfYd dk;kZy; ls lkekU; fdz;k&dykiksa rFkk dk;kZy; esa gksus okys dk;ksZa ds lHkh Lrj ij vadu vkSj lHkh Lrj ij cjrh tkus okyh lko/kkuh esa Hkh bUgksaus viuh dRrZO;ghurk ds dkj.k ck/kk miLFkkfir dhA” As with regard to charge no. 2, the Enquiry Officer had come to the following findings :- “dkjk v/kh{kd] Hkkxyiqj dk earO;%& bl laca/k esa dkjk v/kh{kd dsUnzh; dkjk Hkkxyiqj dk Li’V er gS fd fudklh ,oa O;;u inkf/kdkjh gksus ds ukrs fu;ekuqlkj ,MHkkbl dks eqgjcan fyQkQs esa fi;wu cqd esa pMkdj Mkd vnZyh] }kjk dks’kkxkj dks gLrxr djk;k tk jgk gS ;k ugha] bl vksj Jh >k us dHkh /;ku ugha fn;kA foMEcuk rks ;g gS fd vU; foi= tks vkiwjdksa ds ugha Fkh] mUgsa mi;qZDr fu;e ds vuq:i Hkstk tkrk jgk] fdUrq vkiwjdksa ds ,MHkkbl vkSj foi= fi;wu cqd ij u p<kdj lh/ks vkiwjdksa dks gLrxr djk fn;k x;k] ftlls xcu dk ekxZ iz”kLr gqvkA euro; % Jh >k ds fo:) nwljk vkjksi gS fd mUgksaus dks’kkxkj lafgrk esa of.kZr fudklh ,oa O;;u inkf/kdkjh ds nkf;Roksa dk ikyu ugha fd;k] ftlds pyrs ;g xcu vklkuh ls laHko gks ldkA Jh >k dk dguk gS fd bl vkjksi ls Li’V ugha gksrk fd muds }kjk fdl fu;e fo”ks’k esa fufgr lko/kkfu;kW ugha cjrh x;h gSA vius dk;Zdky esa cuk;s x;s foi= la[;k 88@92&93 rFkk 15@92&93 dk mnkgj.k nsrs gq, buds }kjk crk;k x;k gS fd dks’kkxkj dh feyhHkxr ds dkj.k gh ;g fudklh lEHko ls gqbZ gSA laca/k esa dkjk v/kh{kd] dsUnzh; dkjk Hkkxyiqj dk Li’V er gS fd bUgksaus inkf/kdkjh ds nkf;Roksa dk fuokZg ugha fd;k gS] ftlesa lcls egRoiw.kZ xyrh ;g gS fd foi=ksa ds ,MHkkbl dks foi= ds lkFk yxkdj lh/ks vkiwjdksa ds ek/;e ls dks’kkxkj dks Hkstk x;kA dkjk v/kh{kd] dsUnzh; dkjk Hkkxyiqj ds vuqlkj Jh >k ds }kjk eq[; :i ls fuEufyf[kr xyfr;kW dh x;hA ,oa O;;u fudklh 1- dks’kkxkj ls Vh-Hkh uEcj u eaxk;k Patna High Court CWJC No.15305 of 2012 (3) dt.12-02-2013 5 2- 3- tkukA fjVuZ 12 lefiZr ugha fd;k tkukA ,MHkkbl eqgjcan fyQkQs esa Mkd vnZyh }kjk eSlsUtj cqd esa p<kdj dks’kkxkj inkf/kdkjh@cSad dks gLrxr u djk;k tkukA esjh jk; esa fudklh ,oa O;;u inkf/kdkjh gksus ds ukrs Jh >k dks ;g tkudkjh gksuh pkfg, fd mUgsa fdu foRrh; fu;eksa dk ikyu djuk gSA fu;e ls vufHkKrk izdV dj os vius nks’kksa ;k nkf;Roksa ls cjh ugha gks ldrsA xcu fd;s x;s foi=ksa ds fudklh dh frfFk;ksa ij xkSj djus ls ;g Li’V gS fd xcu dh iwjh jkf”k yxkrkj rhu foRrh; o’kksZa esa dh xbZ gS ;Fkk o’kZ 90&91] 91&92 rFkk 92&93 esa gSA bl chp eaMy dkjk dfVgkj ds }kjk dh x;h fudklh dk lR;kiu dks’kkxkj ls dHkh ugha fd;k x;k gSA Jh iznhi >k dk bl laca/k esa dguk gS fd fudklh ds lR;kiu dk dk;Z o’kksZa ls ugha gks jgk Fkk] ;gkW rd fd eaMy dkjk esa bl xcu dk.M dh lwpuk feyus ds ckn Hkh ;g dk;Z ugha djk;k tk jgk gSA Jh >k dk ;g Hkh dguk gS fd dks’kkxkj dk vfHkys[k v|ru ugha jgus rFkk dks’kkxkj dfeZ;ksa }kjk lg;ksx ugha fd;s tkus ds dkj.k lR;kiu dk;Z ugha gks jgk FkkA Jh >k dh ;g nyhy Lohdkj djus ;ksX; ugha gSA o’kZ 90&91 dk lR;kiu vxj 91&92 rFkk 92&93 esa Hkh fd;k tkrk rks xcu dk ekeyk idM esa vk ldrk FkkA” Charge no. 3 reads as follows :- “vkjksi la0&3%& eaMy dkjk dfVgkj esa dks’kkxkj ls fudklh ds feyku dk dk;Z fiNys dbZ o’kksZa ls ugha gks jgk Fkka vkius Hkh bl xyrh dks fujUrjrk iznku dhA i`’Bkafdr foi=ksa dks Bhdsnkjksa dks lh/ks gkFk esa ns nsus dh O;oLFkk esa bUgksaus dksbZ NsM+NkM+ ugha dhA ;gkW rd fd rS;kj foi= rFkk dks’kkxkj ,MHkkbl i= eqgjcUn fyQkQs esa Hkstus ds ctk; bUgksaus gkFkksa&gkFk [kqys :i ls Bhdsnkjksa ds gkFk lkSai nsus dh xyrh dhA” The Enquiry Officer, as with regard to charge no. 3, after considering the explanation and the evidence on record Patna High Court CWJC No.15305 of 2012 (3) dt.12-02-2013 6 had held as follows :- “earO; %& vkjksih Jh >k us vius fo:) yxk;s x;s vkjksi la[;k 3 dk dksbZ Li’V mRrj ugha fn;k gS] cfYd nks’k nwljksa ij e<us dh dksf”k”k dh gSA dksbZ Hkh O;fDr nwljs ds fo:) vkjksi yxk dj vius mRrjnkf;Roksa ls cjh ugha gks ldrkA bl ekeys esa Hkh ;gh ckr gS] tSlk fd dkxtkrksa ls irk yxrk gS fd Jh >k ds dk;kZy; esa Hkh dks’kkxkj ls fudklh dk lR;kiu rFkk foHkkxh; fjVZu 12 mPp vf/kdkjh dks ugha Hkstk x;k gSA ;g Hkh irk pyrk gS fd vU; foi=ksa tks vkiwjdksa ds ugha Fks] ds ,MHkkbl muds }kjk dks’kkxkj dks fu;ekuqlkj cUn fyQkQs esa Hkstk tkrk Fkk] tcfd vkiwjdksa ds foi=ksa dk ,MHkkbl lh/ks vkiwjdksa dh foi= ds lkFk gh ns fn;s tkrs FksA bl izdkj ;g Li’V gS fd tkus ;k vutkus fdlh Hkh izdkj Jh >k ds }kjk fudklh ,oa O;;u inkf/kdkjh }kjk cjrh tkus okyh lko/kkfu;kW ugha cjrh tkus ds dkj.k gh xcu gqvk gSA xcu esa Jh jaxukFk ik.Ms;] lgk;d dkjkiky] dks’kkxkj inkf/kdkjh rFkk vkiwjdksa dh Hkwfedk dkQh lafnX/k izrhr gksrh gSA ,oa dks’kkxkj dfeZ;ksa ;|fi buds fo:) dRrZO; esa ykijokgh cjrus dk vkjksi izekf.kr gksrk gS] ysfdu miyC/k rF;ksa ,oa izek.kksa ls Jh >k dk xcu esa lafyIrrk ,oa Hkkxhnkjh izrhr ugha gksrh gSA” Thus, from a conjoint reading of the findings of the Enquiry Officer in respect of all the three charges, this much becomes clear the petitioner being head of establishment of his jail was definitely negligent towards his duty and even though he may not be a party to the financial indiscipline or embezzlement or misappropriation of government fund but on account of his slackness and negligence such embezzlement and misappropriation had taken place as found by Patna High Court CWJC No.15305 of 2012 (3) dt.12-02-2013 7 the auditor of the Accountant General. In that view of the matter, this Court is also not impressed with the rest of the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner where he has tried to invoke the doctrine of proportionality in inflicting punishment. This Court cannot weigh the evidence for holding the conclusion of the disciplinary authority to be bad and, in fact, if there is some evidence to hold the delinquent guilty, this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot go into the sufficiency of the materials or the findings and consequently the punishment given. Reference in this connection may usefully be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of B. C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and others reported in 1995 (6) S.C.C. 749. The petitioner has already completed almost the age of 54 years and, therefore, once he was also given reprieve by way of compulsory retirement enabling him to earn post retirement benefit in terms of Rule 46-A of the Bihar Pension Rules, this Court does not find any reason to hold that punishment inflicted on him is disproportionate. Mr. Ashutosh, learned counsel for the petitioner, very fairly submitted that apart from these two aspects, there would be nothing more for the petitioner to urge; muchless on the procedural infirmity in course of departmental enquiry. Once this aspect, therefore, becomes clear that there is no procedural Patna High Court CWJC No.15305 of 2012 (3) dt.12-02-2013 8 infirmity in course of the departmental proceeding, the rest of the submission, as noted above, would definitely not make out a case for interference with the impugned order which is based on the analysis of the materials on record fully discussed in the findings of the Enquiry Officer in his enquiry report and the consequential order of the disciplinary authority. That being so, this writ application is devoid of any merit and is, accordingly, is dismissed. Amin/- (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)